[HOLD for payment 2024-11-13] [$250] RBR isn't displayed when scanning failed

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.0.49-0
Reproducible in staging?: y
Reproducible in production?: y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @DylanDylann
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1728897430938149

Action Performed:

1. Login to new account
2. Create new workspace
3. Create a manual request on the above workspace
4. Next, create a scan request with wrong image on the above workspace
5. Waiting for scanning
6. Go to transaction thread and see that there are no RBR on LHN

Expected Result:

RBR is displayed when scanning failed

Actual Result:

RBR isn't displayed when scanning failed

Workaround:

unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

BUG-RBR.mov

Recording.661.mp4

Add any screenshot/video evidence

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021846286418177490016
• Upwork Job ID: 1846286418177490016
• Last Price Increase: 2024-10-22
• Automatic offers:
• DylanDylann | Contributor | 104595958
• daledah | Contributor | 104676254

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @isabelastisser

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @isabelastisser (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[daledah]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

The RBR doesn't display in LHn even though the scanning failed

What is the root cause of that problem?

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 748 to 752 in 4a3f2da

	function hasWarningTypeViolation(transactionID: string, transactionViolations: OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]>): boolean {
	if (!Permissions.canUseDupeDetection(allBetas ?? [])) {
	return false;
	}

hasWarningTypeViolation always returns false if canUseDupeDetection is false, but dupe detection is only one reason that causes a warning violation type. When a receipt scanning fails, the BE still returns a warning violation

In this case, hasWarningTypeViolation should return true

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We should only check canUseDupeDetection permission if all warning violations are DUPLICATED_TRANSACTION. If another reason like smartscanFailed causes a warning violation, hasWarningTypeViolation still should return true

This is my draft implementation for the above idea, we can improve it later

function hasWarningTypeViolation(transactionID: string, transactionViolations: OnyxCollection<TransactionViolation[]>): boolean {
    const warningTypeViolations = transactionViolations?.[ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS + transactionID]?.filter(
        (violation: TransactionViolation) => violation.type === CONST.VIOLATION_TYPES.WARNING,
    );
    if (!Permissions.canUseDupeDetection(allBetas ?? []) && warningTypeViolations?.every((violation) => violation.name === CONST.VIOLATIONS.DUPLICATED_TRANSACTION)) {
        return false;
    }
    return !!warningTypeViolations && warningTypeViolations.length > 0;
}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[FitseTLT]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

RBR isn't displayed when scanning failed

What is the root cause of that problem?

We already have the logic to check for missing smart scan fields for thread transaction threads here

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

Lines 504 to 512 in 8ff185a

	!report?.parentReportID || !report?.parentReportActionID ? undefined : allReportActions?.[report.parentReportID ?? '-1']?.[report.parentReportActionID ?? '-1'];
	if (ReportActionUtils.wasActionTakenByCurrentUser(parentReportAction) && ReportActionUtils.isTransactionThread(parentReportAction)) {
	const transactionID = ReportActionUtils.isMoneyRequestAction(parentReportAction) ? ReportActionUtils.getOriginalMessage(parentReportAction)?.IOUTransactionID : null;
	const transaction = allTransactions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionID}`];
	if (TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction ?? null) && !ReportUtils.isSettled(transaction?.reportID)) {
	reportActionErrors.smartscan = ErrorUtils.getMicroSecondOnyxErrorWithTranslationKey('iou.error.genericSmartscanFailureMessage');
	reportAction = undefined;
	}

the only problem being we are trying to access allReportActions without the report actions collection prefix

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Change it to

const parentReportAction: OnyxEntry<ReportAction> =
        !report?.parentReportID || !report?.parentReportActionID
            ? undefined
            : allReportActions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS}${report.parentReportID ?? '-1'}`]?.[report.parentReportActionID ?? '-1'];

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

[DylanDylann]

@isabelastisser I discovered this bug while reviewing this PR. Just a note, when implementing PR to fix this issue, we also need to ensure that RBR in scanning failed works well for the debug feature

[pac-guerreiro]

I can apply the fix for this in #50468 before it gets merged

[FitseTLT]

@pac-guerreiro The issue is totally unrelated with the PR, it has nothing to do with Debug (it's just only linked because @DylanDylann found it coincedentally reviewing the pr) I don't see it logical to fix it there and, of course, as we have proposed appropriate fixes here.
@DylanDylann WDYT

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~021846286418177490016

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @getusha (External)

[DylanDylann]

@getusha Could I take over this from you?

IMO, I think we should fix this issue on #50468 to ensure RBR in scanning failed works well for the debug feature

[DylanDylann]

If we consider this issue only, we should apply both proposals (@FitseTLT and @daledah) because we are using hasErrors || hasViolations. @daledah fixes the problem on hasViolations, @FitseTLT fixes the problem on hasErrors

[FitseTLT]

If we consider this issue only, we should apply both proposals (@FitseTLT and @daledah) because we are using hasErrors || hasViolations. @daledah fixes the problem on hasViolations, @FitseTLT fixes the problem on hasErrors

I disagree with this @DylanDylann because, firstly, we don't normally show rbr for warning type violations we only allowed that for hold as an exception. Secondly, we handle the missing smart scan fields via hasMissingSmartscanFields in other places like for iouReport here and for the current case of transactionThread report we already have the code here

App/src/libs/OptionsListUtils.ts

Lines 504 to 512 in 8ff185a

	!report?.parentReportID || !report?.parentReportActionID ? undefined : allReportActions?.[report.parentReportID ?? '-1']?.[report.parentReportActionID ?? '-1'];
	if (ReportActionUtils.wasActionTakenByCurrentUser(parentReportAction) && ReportActionUtils.isTransactionThread(parentReportAction)) {
	const transactionID = ReportActionUtils.isMoneyRequestAction(parentReportAction) ? ReportActionUtils.getOriginalMessage(parentReportAction)?.IOUTransactionID : null;
	const transaction = allTransactions?.[`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.TRANSACTION}${transactionID}`];
	if (TransactionUtils.hasMissingSmartscanFields(transaction ?? null) && !ReportUtils.isSettled(transaction?.reportID)) {
	reportActionErrors.smartscan = ErrorUtils.getMicroSecondOnyxErrorWithTranslationKey('iou.error.genericSmartscanFailureMessage');
	reportAction = undefined;
	}

The problem is we forgot ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.REPORT_ACTIONS prefix as I have discussed in my proposal and that is the correct RCA.

[DylanDylann]

we don't normally show rbr for warning type violations

@FitseTLT Wait wait, why do you think so? Please correct me If I am missing anything

[FitseTLT]

@FitseTLT Wait wait, why do you think so? Please correct me If I am missing anything

We are returning false if permission for dupe detection is off

App/src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts

Lines 749 to 750 in 8ff185a

	if (!Permissions.canUseDupeDetection(allBetas ?? [])) {
	return false;

that clearly shows an intent to disable as long as we are on beta for dupe detection so will require separate discussion if we need to allow it. And regarding the current issue, missing scanning fields, there is a clear way to handle it, which checks for missing fields, that is used in all other places so in this case we need to only fix the problem I mentioned to make the already existing code to work.

[melvin-bot]

@isabelastisser, @getusha Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[isabelastisser]

@getusha, please provide an update, thanks! I will DM you for visibility.

[DylanDylann]

@isabelastisser Could you please check this comment? I reported this bug and have more context here

[isabelastisser]

@DylanDylann, are you referring to this comment: #50799 (comment)?

@getusha, can you please review the discussion above and weigh in? Thanks!

[DylanDylann]

@isabelastisser Ahh yes 😄

[getusha]

Go ahead @DylanDylann

[melvin-bot]

@Julesssss @isabelastisser @DylanDylann this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[DylanDylann]

@MelvinBot No, we close to the implementation phase

[DylanDylann]

@Julesssss Friendly bump

[Julesssss]

@Julesssss What do you think about split compensation for both @daledah and @FitseTLT as per this comment

We can. But who would like to implement?

[DylanDylann]

@daledah @FitseTLT Who wants to implement PR? I think we can split 150$ for the implementer and 100$ for the rest one

[daledah]

@DylanDylann I can raise a PR ASAP for this.

[DylanDylann]

Perfect

cc @Julesssss

[melvin-bot]

📣 @daledah 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.57-10 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: show RBR when scanning failed #51782

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-11-13. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @DylanDylann requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @daledah requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @DylanDylann requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

@DylanDylann @isabelastisser The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed. Please copy/paste the BugZero Checklist from here into a new comment on this GH and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

[DylanDylann]

BugZero Checklist:

• [Contributor] Classify the bug:

Bug classification

Source of bug:

• 1a. Result of the original design (eg. a case wasn't considered)
• 1b. Mistake during implementation
• 1c. Backend bug
• 1z. Other:

Where bug was reported:

• 2a. Reported on production
• 2b. Reported on staging (deploy blocker)
• 2c. Reported on a PR
• 2z. Other:

Who reported the bug:

• 3a. Expensify user
• 3b. Expensify employee
• 3c. Contributor
• 3d. QA
• 3z. Other:

• [Contributor] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake.

  Link to comment: Put duplicate detection under a new beta #43864 (comment)

• [Contributor] If the regression was CRITICAL (e.g. interrupts a core flow) A discussion in #expensify-open-source has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner.

  Link to discussion:

• [Contributor] If it was decided to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps using the template below to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.

Regression Test Proposal Template

• [BugZero Assignee] Create a GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

  Link to issue: It happens long time ago and It is hard to find the exact PR that cause this problem

Regression Test Proposal

Precondition:

Test:

1. Login with a new account, create a WS and submit a manual expense
2. Submit a scan expense with a wrong image
3. After scanning, verify that: RBR is displayed for the transaction thread in LHN

Do we agree 👍 or 👎

[FitseTLT]

@isabelastisser It is to remind you the payment setup for this issue it's $100 for me and $150 for @daledah based on #50799 (comment) Thx!

[isabelastisser]

Payment summary:

@daledah requires payment automatic offer (Contributor) $150 Paid!
@FitseTLT paid in Upwork C+. $100.

All set!

[DylanDylann]

@isabelastisser In this issue, we split the compensation to two contributors (@daledah and @FitseTLT). I am C+ on this issue and I should get paid 250$ for this work. Thanks

[isabelastisser]

@DylanDylann, sorry for the confusion! I've processed your payment in Upwork now. Thanks!